Full-framer logic

Tommi K1 wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

Fun 4 all wrote:

Most of the time M43 does provide the IQ shooters want. But there are some times when people need more and that is what FF is for. But it is a relatively small amount of the time.

Sure, but you need good and fast lenses if you want to take advantage of the larger sensor. It's the same problem with mirrorless medium format cameras, Fuji and Hasselblad. If you don't have proper lenses, you cannot take full advantage of larger sensor.

Exposure is shutter speed as well, not just the aperture and sensor size....

Sensor size has nothing to do with exposure.

You don't need fast lens to get benefits ie. landscape where you can use 1/30 or 1/60 shutter speed instead 1/1250 or 1/2000.

Does anyone argue otherwise?

Same thing is with the f/4 or f/5.6 lenses when you can use flashes to do the work.

Flash, however, does alter the lighting of the scene and flash is not always possible. This is like saying you don't need a 600mm lens because you can just use a 50mm lens and get closer.

Exposure isn't just the camera but it is as well the scene illumination.

The exposure is determined entirely by:

• The scene luminance
• The relative aperture of the lens (more properly, the t-stop of the lens)
• The exposure time

The problem is the people who is continually arguing for "identical photograph" like a single method would be only correct way.

Who argues for an "identical photograph"? It certainly isn't proponents of Equivalence, 'cause what Equivalence says is:

A common criticism of Equivalence is that some people say that it does nothing to help them to take better pictures. However, Equivalence is simply a framework by which to compare the IQ of different formats on the basis of six visual properties that are independent of the technology -- the same perspective, framing, DOF / diffraction / total amount of light on the sensor, exposure time (motion blur), brightness, and display dimensions. Equivalence is not an "instruction manual" for how to take a photo, but rather a comparison point for photographs from different systems.

If one system can take a photo that another system cannot, and that results in a "better" photo, then, of course, we would do so. For example, if low noise meant more than a deeper DOF in a scene where motion blur were a factor, then we would compare both systems wide open with the same shutter speed, as that would maximize the amount of light falling on the sensor and thus minimize the noise. Equivalence tells us, however, that this would *necessarily* result in a more shallow DOF for the system using a wider aperture, and thus most likely result in softer corners. So, we surely would not criticize the larger sensor system for having softer corners on the basis of a *choice* the photographer made.

The point of photography is making photos. As such, one doesn't choose the particular system to get photos which are equivalent to another system. A person chooses a particular system for the best balance of the factors that matter to the them, such as price, size, weight, IQ, DOF range, AF, build, etc.. By understanding which settings on which system create equivalent images, these factors can be more evenly assessed to choose the system that provides the optimum balance of the needs and wants of a particular photographer.

Like every portrait is needed to be with narrow DOF or blurred background is the quality stamp for sports and wildlife photography, or low noise is the quality requirement etc.

Just how many straw man arguments are you going to present?

All those are nothing else than gear heads lies to itself to deny the creativity and acceptance of it itself. Easier to blame the gear "If I just would had the FF, I would had a masterpiece!"

Find a link and quote where anyone has said or implied that.

Often it looks like people are grabbing the camera and saying:

"Today I am going to make a two masterpieces and get my name to hall of fame as long I follow the rules:

• Narrow DOF
• ETTR
• Fastest possible shutter speed
• Lowest possible ISO"

See isn't it easy to go out and do the masterpieces? That you can translate to shopping list:

1. Get the lowest noise FF sensor
2. Buy the "fastest possible lenses"

Isn't it simple? You walk to the store and you say those two requirement and they will hand you what you want. Then you will go and apply the rules above and you are creating masterpieces no time!

It takes no great skill to erect straw man arguments and then shoot them down. Perhaps I should start a thread saying, "All mFT photographers think that there's never a use for shallow DOF and noise never matters" yadda, yadda, yadda. But that would be senseless trolling, wouldn't it?